1. Selection for foreign posting — Rejection based on failure to meet minimum service requirement for post-tenure bond — Challenge to selection process. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.C.Agrawal
A.M.Vadi
Versus
India Trade Promotion Organisation
Case No. : 713 of 1994
Date of Decision : 2/4/94
Important Points
The court held that a Selection Committee's decision to reject a candidate based on prescribed organizational conditions is valid. Courts should not interfere with such decisions under Article 226 if the committee followed established rules, regardless of whether alternative arrangements could have been made.
Subject
Service Law - Selection and Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenged by Respondent – Lead to evidence - In counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 1 with reference to writ petition it was stated - Rationale for such a condition is to ensure that Respondent 1 organization benefits from expertise and experience of officers posted abroad on foreign assignments who become conversant with the latest international market trends and on return share their experience and exposure and knowledge, with organization - Selection of appellant was challenged by Respondent 2 by filing writ petition in Delhi High court which has been allowed by division bench of High court by judgment - As regards reason aforementioned given by the Selection Committee for not selecting Respondent 2 learned Judges have observed – Held, minutes of Selection Committee also show that in the case of the petitioner it also took into account the fact that he did not have adequate service to condition of minimum period of two years after completion of normal tenure of three years of posting abroad. Petitioner retires and Selection Committee met on 9/3/1993. In that case the period of his foreign posting could have been curtailed for a couple of months - That was certainly a relevant consideration which the Selection Committee could have considered – Court are of view that High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not justified in finding fault with the decision of the Selection Committee in this regard because in rejecting the candidature of Respondent 2 Selection Committee had only followed the condition that has been prescribed by Respondent I which fact has been admitted by Respondent 2 in his writ petition - Fact that the Selection Committee did not consider it necessary to make a departure from this condition in the case of Respondent does not render the action of the Selection Committee rejecting the candidature of Respondent 2 open to challenge - Question of going into eligibility of the appellant for the posting could not arise for consideration since this is not a proceeding for issue of a writ of quo - Respondent had approached the court since he was aggrieved by his non-selection and the selection of the appellant was challenged in this context only - If Respondent 2 had been rightly rejected by Selection Committee for the reason aforementioned then challenge to selection must fail - Court therefore, do not express any opinion on the question as to the eligibility of the appellant for such selection - Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Selection Committee was justified in rejecting a candidate for failing to meet the minimum service requirement for post-tenure bond. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. The Selection Committee acted within prescribed conditions; failure to deviate from these conditions does not render the selection process open to challenge under Article 226. (Para 6 )
4. Adherence to prescribed eligibility conditions by a Selection Committee in rejecting a candidate is valid and not subject to judicial interference under Article 226. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Can a Selection Committee be faulted for strictly adhering to prescribed eligibility conditions when rejecting a candidate?
No. If a Selection Committee follows the conditions prescribed by the organization for appointment, the decision to reject a candidate who does not meet those conditions is not open to challenge, even if a departure from those conditions was possible. (Para 6 )
7. Does a challenge to non-selection automatically allow the court to examine the eligibility of the selected candidate?
No. In a proceeding where a candidate challenges their own non-selection, the court does not necessarily examine the eligibility of the selected candidate unless the proceeding is specifically for a writ of quo warranto. (Para 6 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 regarding the decisions of a Selection Committee?
The court should not find fault with a Selection Committee's decision if the committee has simply followed the prescribed conditions of the organization, as such adherence does not render the action arbitrary or challengeable. (Para 6 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THIS appeal relates to the selection of the appellant for posting as Resident Director of the India Trade Promotion Organisation, Respondent 1 herein, at New York. The said posting was made on the basis of the selection made by a Selection Committee. The Selection Committee considered three persons including the appellant and S.P. Choudhary, Respondent 2 herein. One of the reasons given by the Selection Committee for rejecting the candidature of Respondent 2 was that he "does not have adequate service to fulfil the condition for a minimum period of two years after completion of the normal tenure of three years of posting abroad". This requirement has been prescribed by Respondent I in the matter of appointment on the post of Resident Director in the foreign office. This has been admitted by Respondent 2 in para 15 of his writ petition in the High court wherein it is stated:
"THAT the candidate/officer proposed to be appointed as Resident Director outside India is required to execute a bond that he would serve the organisation for two years after rejoining Respondent 1 organisation on completion of his tenure failing which he will have to deposit a sum of Rs 20,000."
(4) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 1, with reference to para 15 of the writ petition, it was stated: "The rationale for such a condition is to ensure that Respondent 1 organisation benefits from the expertise and experience of the officers posted abroad on foreign assignments, who become conversant with the latest international market trends and on return share their experience and exposure and knowledge, with the organisation."
(5) THE selection of the appellant was challenged by Respondent 2 by filing writ petition in Delhi High court which has been allowed by the division bench of the High court by judgment dated 15/10/1993. As regards the reason aforementioned given by the Selection Committee for not selecting Respondent 2 the learned Judges have observed:
"THE minutes of the Selection Committee also show that in the case of the petitioner it also took into account the fact that he did not have adequate service to fulfil the condition of minimum period of two years after completion of normal tenure of three years of posting abroad. Petitioner retires on 30/11/1997, and the Selection Committee met on 9/3/1993. In that case the period of his foreign posting could have been curtailed for a couple of months. That was certainly a relevant consideration which the Selection Committee could have considered."
(6) WE are of the view that the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not justified in finding fault with the decision of the Selection Committee in this regard because in rejecting the candidature of Respondent 2 the Selection Committee had only followed the condition that has been prescribed by Respondent I which fact has been admitted by Respondent 2 in his writ petition. The fact that the Selection Committee did not consider it necessary to make a departure from this condition in the case of Respondent 2 does not render the action of the Selection Committee rejecting the candidature of Respondent 2 open to challenge. The question of going into the eligibility of the appellant for the posting could not arise for consideration since this is not a proceeding for issue of a writ of quo warranto. Respondent 2 had approached the court since he was aggrieved by his non-selection and the selection of the appellant was challenged in this context only. If Respondent 2 had been rightly rejected by the Selection Committee for the reason aforementioned then the challenge to the selection must fail. We, therefore, do not express any opinion on the question as to the eligibility of the appellant for such selection.
(7) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the High court
